Direct Eye-Witness Testimony of Victim’s Parent Sufficient to Establish Liability in Hit-and-Run Motor Accidents

On August 18, 2017, the deceased, S. Rajkannan, was killed when a lorry (TN 22 CD 5080) hit his motorcycle from behind near Attipattu.

The father of the deceased (PW1), who was following on another motorcycle, allegedly chased the lorry to note its registration number before returning to the spot and filing an FIR 4.5 hours later.

The claimants sought compensation of Rs. 45,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chennai, awarded Rs. 29,21,600/-, holding the insurer liable.

The Insurance Company appealed on the grounds of non-involvement of the vehicle and improbable testimony of PW1, while the claimants cross-objected for enhancement of quantum.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and whether the insurer is liable despite the alleged improbability of the eyewitness's (PW1) conduct.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement based on the notional monthly income of the deceased.

The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation claims for motor accidents.

It distinguished the precedent Sithara N.S. & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited (2025 INSC 1425), which held that an insurer is not liable if the offending vehicle's identity is not proved through credible evidence or timely complaints.

The court also followed established judicial practice for determining "notional income" and "future prospects" for deceased victims in the absence of salary certificates.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that PW1’s testimony was unbelievable. It held that the reaction of a father chasing a hit-and-run vehicle to identify it, rather than immediately attending to the victim, is a "probable" human reaction and not "unnatural".

Unlike the Sithara case where no eyewitnesses existed, PW1 here was a direct witness who provided the registration number in the FIR.

The Court noted the lorry driver (RW1) admitted to being on the same road at the same time, which probabilized the vehicle's involvement.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s fixation of monthly income at Rs. 12,000/- too low for a 2017 accident; it increased the notional income to Rs. 17,000/- per month in line with consistent High Court benchmarks.

The Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects and a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses.

The Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' cross-objection, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 29,21,600/- to Rs. 40,45,600/- with 7.5% interest per annum.

The Court further clarified that interest must be calculated from the date the petition was taken on record (22.11.2019) rather than the erroneous date (02.01.2015) mentioned in the lower court's decree.